Are you sure you need a non celeron processor?

Just an idea, but something like Ethereum can serve as the data layer for a fully decentralized reputation system... It seems to me that something along these lines would be less likely to be compromised than any central authority tied into a physical item with a key. a well connected trust web is equally hard if not harder to reproduce than a TPM chip.

of course its up to people as to whether or not they want to use it... If it gained traction i could see instant transactions requiring signing from a key with a trustworthy reputation, and large transactions requiring verification via confirmations as the preferable method.

This would also allow for people in less fortunate countries who are unable to get a passport to still benefit from the increased security.

For anyone that has been following this thread, I got my wallet back... luckily, google keeps file revisions on its google drive, i had a previous revision of the encrypted archive i back it up to up there.... replaced the wallet.dat with that and its all good.

If i didn't have it, my wallet would have been gone. done and dusted.

Don't make the same mistake as i did which was simply copying the wallet.dat whilst litecoin-qt was running!!!!

Phew!

thanks to those of you who tried to help me out!

Hi Guys,

Gonna resurrect this one. I thought i had dumped the litecoin backup... apparently not though. tried importing a private key, and it spat out an error. running the dump command again i realised i was dumping an unencrypted bitcoin wallet! FAIL!

I tried using the below command to dump my "corrupted" litecoin wallet.dat

pywallet.py --dumpwallet --otherversion=48 --datadir=C:\litecoin > dump.txt

no go, i still have the version of the blockchain that i copied off before the reformat and install of windows along with multiple copies of the same wallet.dat but it spits out the following whether i try it in the current litecoin directory with a new blockchain and old copy of the wallet.dat, or the backup copy of the blockchain and wallet located in C:\litecoin.

ERROR:root:Couldn't open wallet.dat/main. Try quitting Bitcoin and running this
again.

I definitely don't have LTC or BTC running and permissions look fine on the folder... has anyone seen this before?

Its getting to the point now i'm willing to pay a decent reward if someone can help me get it back... .2 BTC or 10 LTC if i can get into my wallet!

After reading through the debug.log i found the following reference to  db.log

2014-01-13 12:27:12 init message: Verifying wallet...
2014-01-13 12:27:12 dbenv.open LogDir=C:\Users\\AppData\Roaming\Litecoin\database ErrorFile=C:\Users\\AppData\Roaming\Litecoin\db.log
2014-01-13 12:27:12 Renamed wallet.dat to wallet.1389616032.bak
2014-01-13 12:27:12 Error: Salvage found errors, all data may not be recoverable.
2014-01-13 12:27:12 Salvage(aggressive) found no records in wallet.1389616032.bak.
2014-01-13 12:27:15 Shutdown : In progress...
2014-01-13 12:27:15 StopNode()
2014-01-13 12:27:15 Flushed 0 addresses to peers.dat  6ms
2014-01-13 12:27:15 Shutdown : done

the db.log file referenced shows the following...

file unknown has LSN 1/674149, past end of log at 1/28
Commonly caused by moving a database from one database environment
to another without clearing the database LSNs, or by removing all of
the log files from a database environment
Page 0: metadata page corrupted
Page 0: could not check metadata page
wallet.dat: DB_VERIFY_BAD: Database verification failed
file unknown has LSN 1/674149, past end of log at 1/1076
Commonly caused by moving a database from one database environment
to another without clearing the database LSNs, or by removing all of
the log files from a database environment
wallet.1389617886.bak: DB_VERIFY_BAD: Database verification failed

Hopefully someone much smarter than i am has some idea of whats going on here.

Thanks bitpop,

Managed to dump the private keys and whatnot, so i know i haven't lost all my coins, but i'll be buggered if i can work out how to import all the dumped keys into a new wallet.dat that works...

pywallet spits out errors when i try

Cheers!

wallet.dat was fine, have multiple copies of it. then i reinstalled windows, afterwards i copied the entire litecoin folder that i backed up before the windows reinstall back into %appdata% roaming, and installed the latest version  of litecoin-qt... now it thinks its corrupted

Additionally, found a thread that mentions how to fix corrupt wallets...

tried using https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcointools fixwallet.py and it doesn't run properly

the error i get is: "Skipping tem of type minversion"

Running dbdump.py --wallet Comes up with "Skipping tem of type minversion" after showing all the keys and stuff, last few lines of output below.

Change Pool key 101: 1CfgWf8ML3qZo9hdNg2bJSaY8vp68GQn11 (Time: Tue Sep 10 21:03:
21 2013)
addrIncoming:
Version: 80600
Block Locator top: 00000000000000046cf4629a0a4bd42fecb0b94ea17b67c9fd4c624c15ceb
0aa
Default Key: 0x03fb...df7d 1Fnw1LL9ChZtoaW5sxHTYU843SNihfP6mX
Skipping item of type minversion



Can anyone help me get my litecoins back?

I thought we were talking about the system as a whole, not a specific injury that drunk women are prone to...

We are off topic though, i think that some government workers will most definitely riot if their government can't pay them and they lose their cushy unproductive jobs and the rest of the perks, not all of them though, some will find work elsewhere.

I do wonder though, will they riot against the government who royally shafted them or will they join something similar to the occupy movement?


Fair call, i guess any system that coerces money from people is always going to be suboptimal. If you're taking money from everyone then theres no tangible financial incentive to being healthy... well there is to a degree if you reduce premiums but because alot of people lean toward instant gratification it seems like it would be unlikely to be effective.

I don't think theres any way to get around the financial burden for unhealthiness, all you can do is take away the financial disincentive for being healthy. I guess the only way to do that is have people voluntarily purchase their own health insurance and let the market sort it out.


Awesome idea! Can wait to see one on the shelves.

What models? I thought it was generally well known that poor people generally favour toward instant gratification... Its one of the primary reasons that poor people stay poor. In their 1988 paper "A Theory of Rational Addiction," economists Gary Becker and Kevin Murphy argued that shooting heroin is a logical choice when all you're giving up is a crappy existence.

I think its entirely reasonable to expect people to become healthier and for there to be less of a burden on the healthcare system if people get financial incentives to be healthy... How do you train your children to do the right thing? or even most animals for that matter? I guess you could beat them and force them to do them... but we all know that sends the wrong message and just doesn't work very well... Don't we?

A health system that punishes the healthy financially is the exact opposite of rational thinking. One of the major pillars of psychology is the human response to incentives
and if our society is anything to go by, financial incentives are the most widely spread and motivational motivation tool there is.

Giving unhealthy people no financial incentive to be healthy is right up there as far as bad ideas go when it comes to minimizing harm in society.

Yep, i would imagine that the FBI will go after whoever it is who created it. Nothing will happen for a while because its most probably someone after people's bitcoin.

certainly though, if the website stays up, and its not a scam.... and BTC goes to 10,000... i doubt bernanke will ever leave his private island that he will be forced to build....

I don't really see this as ever being an issue... do you think people really need the threat of death hanging over their heads to not go around being a knob to everyone they meet?


I can certainly see where you're coming from, i don't think that the concerns are really warranted though, this kind of thing happens privately anyway for the wacko's that really have a vendetta and that to me seems like it should be much more of a concern if you don't know about it, if you crowdfund a murder on a website then surely the person who is targeted will be aware of it if they are doing something that is going to potentially piss alot of people off.

Seems to me that people would be more likely to not do things to piss people off if they think there might be severe consequences and it would likely never get to that point... Its a very touchy subject though, a kind of crowd funded murder for justice (if there can be such a thing) system is somewhat going back to the dark ages where there were bounties on peoples heads... who knows what would happen in todays modern society?

On the flip side of the coin, what would happen to the rapists and truly morally bereft/psychotic people... they certainly wouldn't get put in a seperate cell block from the others and live a tax payer funded existence... which i realise could be a double edged sword if someone was framed... but i would imagine that the people who are funding would do the research if they were willing to live with something like that on their conscience... then again, if someone saw a bounty appear on their head, they'd leave wherever they were and probably would have to live a very ostracized life, change their identity and most decent people wouldn't want to be associated with someone who is essentially an outlaw... In todays age you'd have law enforcement as well as other people investigating the bounties put up on the site and why they're up there...


The can of worms is now opened... and the idea is out there, what does everyone think will happen?

I don't agree with the principle, if you want to stop obama or bernanke then promote bitcoins... don't make a martyr out of either of them.

It could well be a scam, but then again... maybe its not, there are an awful lot of people in countries all around the world that have had their lives ruined by the western banking system, and those 2 are the figureheads for that system... What i do find amusing is that people are shocked that this could happen and wondering what to do about it, surely when you have a society based on the fundamental premise that its ok to do violence against someone as long as its "for the greater good" and the leaders of that society use that violence with impunity then its reasonable to assume that people are going to turn to violence as a solution for things they see as problems that the leaders do... Monkey see, Monkey do.

The best thing you can do is to promote the shite out of bitcoin and hope that it defangs the criminals in positions of power before enough people decide they want them dead for someone to think it lucrative enough to have a crack at it... In the meantime whilst you're waiting, read some books and spend some time in the sun.

Yep, agreed that it would probably work just like that... I think also if the current "democratic" system is to be thought of as in any way shape or form valid, then we must assume that generally people are a charitable lot, if they are, then voluntary society works... if they aren't, only a small portion of people will be charitable... maybe not enough to solve the problems... But if people are inherently selfish then government is just a really good way for bad people to gain control over the minority of good charitable people and won't help much because, sociopaths by nature crave power over others and good people don't.

His argument is sound. the ability of the government to give preferential treatment to one group of individuals over another is the crux of the issue and he makes no claims that we have only 2 choices.

Logically there is only one choice that is rational. No one group of people should have preferential treatment over any other group(no regulation). For this to work, you need Private Property rights otherwise you run into the Problem of the commons. People will arrive at the best solution by themselves... which seems to be, by general consensus... Bitcoin and crypto's in general...

whether or not it will stand the test of time like gold and silver has is another story though.

I'll leave you with another quote from that book...

Another point that I would like to make up front is that there always seems to be a strange disconnect or isolation in people’s concerns about the helpless and dependent in society. For instance, whenever I talk about getting rid of public schools, the response inevitably comes
back – automatically, it would seem, just like any other good propaganda – that it would be terrible, because poor children would not be educated.

There is a strange kind of unthinking narcissism in this response, which always irritates me, much though I understand it. First of all, it is rather insulting to be told that you are trying to design a system which would deny education to poor children. To be placed into the general category of “yuppie capitalist scum” is never particularly ennobling. A person will raise this objection with an absolutely straight face, as if he is the only person in the world who cares about the education of poor children. I know that this is the result of pure indoctrination, because it is so illogical.

If we accept the premise that very few people care about the education of the poor, then we should be utterly opposed to majority-rule democracy, for the obvious reason that if only a tiny minority of people care about the education of the poor, then there will never be enough of them to influence a democracy, and thus the poor will never be educated.

However, those who approve of democracy and accept that democracy will provide the poor with education inevitably accept that a significant majority of people care enough about the poor to agitate for a political solution, and pay the taxes that fund public education.

Thus, any democrat who cares about the poor automatically accepts the reality that a significant majority of people are both willing and able to help and fund the education of the poor.

If people are willing to agitate for and pay the taxes to support a State-run solution to the problem of education, then the State solution is a mere reflection of their desires and willingness to sacrifice their own self-interest for the sake of educating the poor.

If I pay for a cure for an ailment that I have, and I find out that that cure actually makes me worse, do I give up on trying to find a cure? Of course not. It was my desire to find a cure that drove me to the false solution in the first place – when I accept that that solution is false, I am then free to pursue another solution. (In fact, until I accept that my first “cure” actually makes me worse, I will continue to waste my time and resources.)

The democratic “solution” to the problem of educating the poor is the existence of public schools – if we get rid of that solution, then the majority’s desire to help educate the poor will simply take on another form – and a far more effective form, that much is guaranteed.

“Ah,” say the democrats, “but without being forced to pay for public schools, no one will surrender the money to voluntarily fund the education of poor children.”

Well, this is only an admission that democracy is a complete and total lie – that public schools do not represent the will of the majority, but rather the whims of a violent minority. Thus votes do not matter at all, and are not counted, and do not influence public policy in the least, and thus we should get rid of this ridiculous overhead of democracy and get right back to a good old Platonic system of minority dictatorship.

This proposal, of course, is greeted with outright horror, and protestations that democracy must be kept because it is the best system, because public policy does reflect the will of the majority. In which case we need have no fear that the poor will not be educated in a free society, since the majority of people very much want that to happen anyway.

Exactly the same argument applies to a large number of other statist “solutions” to existing problems, such as:
• Old-age pensions;
• Unemployment insurance;
• Health care for the impoverished;
• Welfare, etc.
If these State programs represent the desires and will of the majority, then removing the government will not remove the reality of this kind of charity, since government policies reflect the majority’s existing desire to help these people.

If these programs do not represent the desires and will of the majority, then democracy is a complete lie, and we should stop interfering with our leader’s universal benevolence with our distracting and wasteful “voting.”

We will get into this in more detail as we go forward, but I wanted to put the argument out up front, just to address the ridiculous objection that removing a democratic State also removes the benevolence that drives its policies.

A fundamental anarchic argument is that a democratic State uses the genuine benevolence of the majority to expand its own power, and exacerbates poverty, ignorance and sickness in order to justify and continue the expansion of that power.

This is not the first time that the benevolence of good people has been used to control them. We only need to think of the example of organized religion to understand that…

Logic is precisely what its not lacking... its a very small excerpt from the book, the book itself is all about pointing out the logical fallacies in our feelings toward government and the ambivalence toward anarchy in general. - ie: its the most highly cherished thing in your personal life but the biggest evil and most feared of things by most people when applied on a grander scale...


comfort is a subjective thing, and if you have even payed attention to whats happening around the world, you'd find that this is precisely what is happening... so what you're saying is that even if welfare is barely giving people the barest of essentials required to live, under a welfare state the numbers of people on welfare will increase considerably... well, i must say i wholeheartedly agree with you on that one.



I think all but the most bigoted of people will agree everyone definitely has the right to life. Everyone will also agree that people do NOT have the right to steal from the next guy with impunity...  The Sarrazin thesis is happening all over the world at the moment mate, the next line is "This balancing act is one of the enormous and complex challenges of true charity – and yet another reason why a violent  monopoly will never end up helping the poor in any substantive or permanent manner." the guy is not opposed to people having a right to life...




So, because most people are in favour of this and would voluntarily give some money to charity to help unfortunate people if there was no state to do it... why do you need the state to forcefully take it from people again? talk about illogical reasoning!



I also have to work so i'll leave you with this homework Mr Historian, look up the swiss conferacy... and icelandic history... 2 of the most prominent examples of anarchistic societies working... interesting tidbit for you to look forward to, the swiss had a stable society for a good 800 years right through the middle ages... if you're a historian then you'll know what the rest of europe was like...

I think this sums it up nicely, the same principles of charity can be applied to general welfare as i think healthcare and welfare should go hand in hand, its from the book Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux.

We certainly want to help the unfortunate, but we do not wish to enable and subsidize bad
decisions – this is only part of the complexity involved in helping others – which a statist society
cannot distinguish or deal with at all.
If society gave everything that a poor person could possibly require in order to live comfortably,
that would scarcely reduce the numbers of poor people, but would rather increase them
considerably. On the other hand, the children of poor people are scarcely responsible for any bad
decisions their parents may have made – however, if charities give a lot of money to poor people
with children, more poor people will tend to have more children, which will only increase poverty.
This balancing act is one of the enormous and complex challenges of true charity – and yet another
reason why a violent monopoly will never end up helping the poor in any substantive or permanent
manner.
When it comes to health care, there is no doubt whatsoever that the majority of people care about
the provision of health care for those who cannot afford it. At a hospital I visited recently, I saw a
placard on the wall thanking the five thousand volunteers who helped run the place.
Doctors as a whole will always treat someone who comes with an immediate injury, whether they
can pay or not. If we assume that medical treatments for the genuinely deserving and needy poor
would consume about ten percent of general health care spending, then we can be completely
certain that this amount of money would be donated by concerned individuals, either in time or
money. We can be certain of this because we know of a large number of religious organizations that
require ten percent of people’s total income – twenty percent in fact, since this is pretax income –
and people are quite happy to pay that.
Thus the medical needs of the poor would be entirely taken care of in a free society through charity
and pro bono work. Charities would also compete to provide the most effective care for the poor, in
order to gain the most donations. I would certainly prefer to give my money to an organization that
was best able to create and provide sustainable health practices and medical treatments for the
poor.
In this way, not only would the self-interest of doctors, insurance companies and customers be
aligned – but also the self-interest of donators, charities and the poor they serve.
In a stateless society, the poor will be genuinely served by a far better system, composed of those
whose self-interest is directly aligned with the health of the poor.
As has been shown over and over again, throughout history and across the world, benevolent
selfinterest, enhanced by free association and voluntary competition, is the only way to create
sustainable compassion within society.
I am aware that I have not answered all possible objections to the question of how health care is
provided in a free society. I am also aware that the possibility always exists that people can “fall
through the cracks,” or that charities could conceivably make mistakes, and either fund the wrong
people, or fail to fund the right people.
Once more, this possibility of corruption and/or error is often considered to be an airtight
argument against anarchy, when in fact it is an airtight argument for anarchy, and against statism.

Competition and voluntarism are the only known methodologies for repairing and opposing the
inevitable errors and corruptions that constantly creep into human relations. The fact that human
beings can make mistakes – and are always susceptible to corruption – is exactly why they should
never be given a monopoly power of violence over others.
When an entrepreneur – whether charitable or for-profit – makes a mistake by failing to provide
value – others will immediately rush in to provide the missing benefit. It is this constant process of
challenge and competition that allows the best solutions to be consistently discovered and
reinvented in an ever-changing world.

In an anarchic society, chances are very good that the security/insurance companies that shopkeepers pay to keep criminals out would provide this safety net because stopping people from going hungry and turning to crime would be in the interests of the clients they service as well as their bottom line. Less claims mean less paperwork and staffing expenses for them, less broken into properties, less forensics, less repairs... the list just keeps going on, as well as the ability to advertise the fact they do give something back to the community on top of the services people are happy to pay for.

In some ways i'm glad that goverment is so incompetent all the time.

Just Bought a MSI HD7970 twin frozr 3, its a reference card, brand spanking new one with boost up to 1050mhz and its not voltage locked, but it did come stock at 1.256 volts . i just undervolted it now the temps are 72c on that one at 1.2v and 1150mhz, the sapphire dual-x 7970 i've got is 1.2v and 1200mhz and about 63c(second card so it doesn't get as hot)

those are some mighty impressive numbers for 1000mhz.... i can get 730 on my sapphire dual-x but thats at 1200mhz and 1.2v

the MSI i just bought does just under 700 at 1150mhz and 1.2v.